coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and apparently lives in Portugal.
7.  On 30 March 1993 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of debtor’s dishonesty. He had acted as a financial consultant in connection with transactions between two companies, Osakeyhtiö Six (as of 1997 Fryckman-Yhtiö Oy) and Moniplan Oy. On 30 December 1988 Osakeyhtiö Six had sold to Moniplan Oy the shares of its subsidiaries Six-Myynti Oy (later Seroponex Oy) and Aromimauste Oy (later Cenoporex Oy). The above-mentioned sales contract had later been declared null and void in civil proceedings.
8.  On 15 December 1993 the applicant was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting debtor’s dishonesty before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki. At the same trial the owners of Osakeyhtiö Six and Moniplan Oy were charged with two counts of debtor’s dishonesty. The case was heard on 26 occasions before the District Court.
9.  On 10 December 1997 the Helsinki Tax Rectification Committee (verotuksen oikaisulautakunta, prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden found Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy liable to pay certain taxes. They appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten).
10.  At the 16th hearing on 10 June 1997 the District Court adjourned the case in anticipation of the outcome of the taxation proceedings pending before the County Administrative Court.
11.  After the 19th hearing, held on 27 May 1998, the presiding judge died and she was replaced by another judge.
12.  On 11 March 1999 the County Administrative Court issued its decision, dismissing the appeals.
13.  At the 23rd hearing on 23 June 1999 and 24th hearing on 18 November 1999 the District Court adjourned the case in anticipation of the outcome of the taxation proceedings which were now pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). In two decisions of 2 December 1999 the court dismissed the appeals.
14.  At the 25th hearing on 9 February 2000 the District Court took note of the above decisions and deferred judgment until 13 June 2000, when it found the applicant guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of eight months and ordered to pay damages jointly and severally with two other convicted persons.
15.  On 23 November 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
16.  On 28 June 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Torez, the Donetsk region.
5.  On 1 June 1999 the Torez Town Court ordered the Progres State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 11,695.98[1] in occupational disability allowances and salary arrears.
6.  On 28 June 1999 the Torez Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  By three decisions of 19 January 2001, the labour disputes commission of the mine awarded the applicant UAH 16,197.63[2] in arrears of salary and occupational disability allowances.
8.  According to the Government, the judgment and the commission’s decisions were partly enforced in instalments: in November 1999, December 2000, June and September 2001 the applicant received a total of UAH 6,329.45[3], on an unspecified date he received a total of UAH 8,500.79[4], and in July and September 2003 he was paid UAH 2,984.74[5].
9.  The parties did not specify the date on which the applicant was paid the remaining amount of the awards of the judgment and the commission’s decisions awards (UAH 10,078.63[6]).
10.  On 22 September 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment and the commission’s decisions given in the applicant’s favour.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Pervomaysk, the Mykolaiv region.
5.  On 22 December 1997 the Pervomaysk Town Court found the applicant guilty of libel and sentenced her to a public reprimand. By the same decision, the court rejected the applicant’s criminal law complaint against Mr and Mrs S as unsubstantiated. On 29 January 1998 the Mykolaiv Regional Court upheld that decision.
6.  By two decisions of 16 February and 21 November 2000, the Pervomaysk Town Court ordered the Pervomaysk Town Department of Education (the “Department”) to pay the applicant UAH 2,641.19[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
7.  On 31 March 2000 and 5 February 2001, respectively, the Pervomaysk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of these judgments.
8.  By a number of letters between 2000 and 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service and the Ministry of Education informed the applicant that the judgments in her favour could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the Department’s expenditures.
9.  According to the Government, the Department transferred the amounts due under the judgments to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service in two instalments of 27 June and 4 July 2003.
10.  The applicant acknowledged that on 9 and 10 July 2003 she had been invited to obtain the money due to her at the premises of the Bailiffs’ Service. She has, however, failed to do so, no reasons having been given.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in the town of Chuguyev, the Kharkiv region.
5.  The State owns 32.67% of the shares in the Chuguyevskaya Toplivnaya Apparatura Company (the applicants’ employer, hereafter “the Company”), which is therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.
6.  On 2 December 1999 the labour disputes commission of the Company awarded the applicant UAH 1,216[1] in salary arrears. On the same date the commission issued a certificate to the applicant, which had the same status as a court’s writ of execution. The enforcement proceedings were initiated on 8 December 1999 by the Chuguyev City Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service (the “Bailiffs”).
7.  On 12 June 2002 the Chuguyev City Court ordered that the Company’s salary, social benefits and alimony arrears be paid by instalments. The court referred, inter alia, to the practical suspension of the enforcement proceedings against the Company following the adoption of the aforementioned moratorium Law.
8.  In a letter of 2 July 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice (the “Department”) also referred to this Law as being an impediment to the enforcement of the award. However, the Department indicated that the proceedings with respect to the assets of the Company not covered by the moratorium (i.e. bank accounts) were to continue.
9.  Numerous enforcement proceedings against the Company (including the applicant’s case) were impeded by the decision of the City Court of 12 June 2002. Therefore, on 30 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, the Bailiffs applied to the court, requesting the clarification of its decision. However, it was not until 9 April 2003 that the clarification, enabling the Bailiffs to carry out the enforcement, was delivered.
10.  On a number of occasions between July 2002 and February 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring further debt recovery. The last decision of this kind was taken on 19 February 2004.
11.  According to a letter dated 5 May 2004 from the Department, the enforcement of the applicant’s award was hindered by both the City Court decision of 12 June 2002 and the bankruptcy proceedings against the Company. The latter caused the Bailiffs to stay the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions (the last such suspension being made on 16 May 2003 and subsequently lifted on 16 January 2004).
12.  On 31 March 2005 the award was fully paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and live in Litomyšl and České Budějovice respectively.
5. On 26 September 1994 the applicants instituted restitution proceedings in the Žďár nad Sázavou District Court (okresní soud).
6.  Received on 30 September 1994, the court sent the action on 31 October 1994 to the defendants for their observations. On 29 November 1994 and 25 January 1995 respectively, it requested the Land Registry (katastr nemovitostí) to provide it with supplementary documents.
7.  On 22 February 1995 the District Court requested the applicants to complete their action in order to reflect the facts revealed by the Land Registry’s documents. The applicants complied on 14 March 1995. The next day, the court requested the Land Registry to provide additional documentation.
8.  On 6 April 1995 it invited the applicants to substantiate the defendants’ liability to be sued (pasivní legitimace).
9.  On 24 April 1995 the applicants requested the District Court to include a fourth defendant in the proceedings. The court had therefore to obtain information about this new defendant from the Register of Companies (obchodní rejstřík).
10.  On 19 September 1995 it invited one of the defendants to submit written observations.  On 23 October 1995 the court received the applicants’ proposal to modify their restitution action. The same day, it admitted the new version of the action.
11.  A hearing scheduled for 12 April 1996 was adjourned at the applicants’ request until 4 June 1996.
12.  On 25 April 1996 the court received observations from one of the parties to the proceedings.
13. One of the applicants did not attend the hearing of 4 June 1996 which was then adjourned sine die in order to produce the evidence suggested by the parties.
14.  On 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 June, 17 July and 4 September 1996, the District Court received documentary evidence.
15.   In a judgment of 1 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ restitution action.
16.  On 18 October 1996 the applicants appealed. On 23 October 1996 they motivated their appeal, which was forwarded to the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) on 12 December 1996.
17.  On 22 November 1999 the Regional Court, having requested further evidence on 3 November 1996 and having held a hearing on 15 November 1999, modified the first instance judgment.
18.  On 29 December 1999 the case file was returned to the District Court and, on 3 January 2000, the Regional Court’s judgment was sent to the parties.
19.  On 3 March 2000 the applicants filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost), claiming that Articles 1 (equality of all), 3 (prohibition on discrimination) and 11 § 1 (right to property) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod) had been violated.
20.  On 12 April 2000 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the appeal which the applicants had lodged on points of law (dovolání) on 4 February 2000.
21.  On 17 May 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) invited the applicants to remove certain shortcomings in their appeal. The applicants complied on 2 June 2000. On 20 June 2000 the court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal.
4.  Ms Yekaterina Nikiforovna Miroshnichenko (the first applicant) and Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Grabovskaya (the second applicant) were born in 1948. Both applicants live in the town of Chuguyev, the Kharkiv region.
5.  The State owns 32.67% of the shares in the Chuguyevskaya Toplivnaya Apparatura Company (the applicants’ employer, hereafter “the Company”), which is therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.
6.  On 12 June 2002 the Chuguyev City Court (hereafter the “City Court”) ordered that the Company’s salary, social benefits and alimony arrears be paid by instalments. The court referred, inter alia, to the practical suspension of the enforcement proceedings due to the aforementioned moratorium Law.
7.  On 25 November 2002 and 3 March 2003, the City Court awarded the first applicant a total of UAH 2,810[1] against the Company in salary arrears. On 3 March 2003 the City Court made a similar award in favour of the second applicant for the sum of UAH 2,178.35[2].
8.  Both judgments became final and were sent to the Chuguyev City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
9.  In a letter of 8 July 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice (hereafter “the Department”) informed the first applicant that the award could not be immediately enforced due to, inter alia, the moratorium Law. However, the Department indicated that the proceedings with respect to the assets of the Company not covered by the moratorium (i.e. bank accounts) were to continue. On 10 March 2004 the second applicant received a similar letter from the Bailiffs.
10.  Numerous enforcement proceedings against the Company (including the applicants’ cases) were impeded by the decision of the City Court of 12 June 2002. Therefore, on 30 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, the Bailiffs applied to the court, requesting the clarification of its decision. However, it was not until 9 April 2003, that the clarification, enabling the Bailiffs to carry out the enforcement, was delivered.
11.  On a number of occasions between July 2002 and February 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring further debt recovery. The last decision of this kind was taken on 19 February 2004.
12.  According to a letter dated 5 May 2004 from the Department, the enforcement of the applicants’ awards was hindered by both the City Court decision of 12 June 2002 and the bankruptcy proceedings against the Company. The latter caused the Bailiffs to stay the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions (the last such suspension being made on 16 May 2003 and subsequently lifted on 16 January 2004).
13.  The judgments in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Dnipryany, the Kherson region.
5.  On 15 January 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court ordered the Joint Stock Company “Pivdenelektronmash”, in which the State held 75% of the share capital, to pay the applicant UAH 4,831.83[1] in salary arrears. At that time there were bankruptcy proceedings pending against the debtor company.
6.  On 21 February 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  On the same date the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings because of the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended by the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
8.  On 3 June 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court, following the applicant’s request, quashed that decision.
9.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the tax lien placed on the debtor’s property and its lack of funds.
10.  On 15 October 2002 the same court quashed the decision of the Bailiffs’ Service and ordered the latter to resume the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 20 December 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the debtor company.
12.  On 4 February 2003 the same court quashed the decision of 20 December 2002 and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to renew the enforcement proceedings. On 20 May 2003 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld decision of the first instance court.
13.  In November 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 1,635[2].
14.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment given in his favour. On 7 October 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
15.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 3,196.83[3].
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Lugansk.
5.  On 26 May 2000, the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyi Stankobudivelnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,240.65[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 8 June 2000 the Leninskyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Lugansk instituted enforcement proceedings.
7.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. On 18 June 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
8.  On 1 February 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment given in his favour could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
9.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 7 May 2002 the court rejected his claim as being unsubstantiated. On 8 August 2002 and 9 January 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision.
10.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant received the full amount of the judgment debt.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
5.  On 7 May 1999 and 30 August 2001 the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 3,124[1] against the State-owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  In a letter of 27 February 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgments in her favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s assets.
7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business.
8.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour as both awards were fully paid to her.
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 2333/02) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Haroldas Trijonis (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2001. 3.  The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr P. Kūris, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr J. Hedigan, the judge elected in respect of Ireland, to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 4.  The applicant complained inter alia that criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long contrary to the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, and that the remand measure of home arrest ordered in the context of those proceedings had breached Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant made his last communication to the Court by an undated letter received on 24 February 2004, stating that he had maintained his complaints under the Convention. 5.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section (Rule 52 § 1). 7.  By a letter of the Registry of 31 March 2005 the applicant was informed about the decision. It was noted in the letter that the applicant had until 23 May 2005 to submit his observations on the merits, his position on the friendly settlement in the case, and his claims for just satisfaction (Rules 59, 60 and 62 of the Rules of Court). The letter was sent to his home address in Klaipeda by ordinary post. 9.  By a letter of the Registry of 21 June 2005, sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, the applicant was reminded that he had not submitted a reply to the Court’s letter of 31 March 2005. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. 10.  On 23 September 2005 a further letter of the Registry was sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, reiterating the contents of the letters of 31 March and 21 June 2005. 11.  Receipt by the applicant of the registered letters of 21 June and 23 September 2005 was confirmed by the post service. However, the applicant has not replied to any of the above-mentioned letters from the Registry of the Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and currently resides in Dneprodzerzhinsk, the Dnepropetrovsk Region. The applicant is a former employee of the Public Transportation Company “Dneprodzerzhinskgorelectrotrans” (“the PTC”), managed and owned by the Department of Communal Property of the Dneprodzerzhinsk City Council.
7.  On 5 July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zavodskoy District Court of Dneprodzerzhinsk against the PTC, seeking compensation for unpaid salary. On 18 July 2000 the Zavodskoy District Court of Dneprodzerzhinsk allowed her claims and ordered the PTC to pay her UAH 2,970 in compensation.
8.  On 10 August 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted the enforcement proceedings with regard to the judgment of 18 July 2000.
9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the PTC, seeking compensation for delayed salary payments, unpaid salary and compensation for moral damage. On 4 July 2001 the Zavodskoy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part and ordered the PTC to pay her UAH 990 and UAH 800 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.
10.  The execution proceedings for this judgment were initiated on 16 July 2001.
11.  On 3 September 2001 the Zavodskoy Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the aforementioned judgments could not be executed due the PTC’s lack of funds.
12.  On 4 February 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service proposed that the PTC’s property (trams, technical equipment and an administrative building) be transferred to the debtors.
13.  On 14 June 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Department of Justice also informed the applicant that the judgments could not be executed due to the PTC’s lack of funds.
14.  On 6 September 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writs of enforcement to the applicant unenforced. On 20 September 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings were still pending.
15.  On 7 June 2003 the applicant received UAH 1,380 in partial enforcement of the judgments against PTC. On 17 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court declared the PTC bankrupt.
16.  On 14 October 2004 the applicant informed the Court that the outstanding unpaid debt was UAH 1,436.
17.  On 16 December 2004 the PTC ceased to exist as a result of its liquidation.
18.  On 1 February 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the unpaid amount was UAH 800.